Majority
p. 194Sicard against Whale. NEW-YORK, May, 1814. cited Smith v. Spinolla, ( 1 Johns. Rep. 198 .) White v. Canfield, ( 7 Johns. Rep. 117 .) James v. Allen, (1 Dallas, 188.) and Pearsall v. Dwight, (2 Mass. T. R. 84—89.)
Headnote
Where the creditor and his debtor reside in another state, and the debtor there obtains his discharge under the insolvent law of that state, and is afterwards arrested, a.t the suit of the Creditor 3 in this state, for the same debt, this court will not discharge the defendantfrom the arrest, on filing common "bail, nor order an exoneretur to be enter» d on the hail piece.FAY, for the defendant, moved that an exoneretur be entered on the bail piece filed in this cause. It appeared that the debt for which the present suit was brought, was contracted in the state of Pennsylvania, where the parties were at that time resident, and that the defendant, on the 27th March, 1812, obtained a discharge under the insolvent laws of that state, from imprisonment, and from all liability of his person, for any debts, before that time contracted. The plaintiff was, at the time of the defendant’s obtaining his discharge, and still is, resident in Pennsylvania.
Fay cited Smith v. Smith, ( 2 Johns. Rep. 235 .)
Brackett, contra,
It is impossible to distinguish this case from that of Smith v. Spinolla. That case was decided on a sound principle, that if a foreign creditor pursues his debtor here, he is entitled to the remedy provided by our own laws. We look oniy to the course of proceedings established in our own courts. The lex loci contractus is not applicable on this motion. When the cause comes to issue, and the discharge is pleaded, it will be time enough to consider of its effect.
Motion denied.